Someone on forum said "We cannot have double stndards,if we say that kashmir is an integral part of india so is tibet an integral part of china"
This comparison is apples to oranges. Kashmir was annexed to India legally. Whether it was morally right is a different point. Suppose you pay by the nose to buy a property, occupy it and then realize that the property was stolen. What do you do ? Give it up easily ? You paid for it already !
When India parted with a part of its land to Pakistan on the basis of religion, why was this basis not strictly followed ? If Pakistan became a Muslim country, shouldnt India have become a non-Muslim country ? Our pseudo-secular leaders made it a secular country. We have more muslims in India than in Pakistan.
I would compare this with the previous owner of the house you bought still occupying the bathroom saying he likes the bathroom since he has emotions attached to it. So we make special rules in this new house (Muslim law) we bought where the original owner can occupy the bathroom when he needs it. Funny thing is this house belonged to our ancestors to begin with.
If Muslims can get a minority status in other states, shouldnt Hindus get a minority status in Kashmir ? Instead we make a special article where non-Kashmiris cannot settle or own property in Kashmir. Hindu pandits have been driven away by ethnic cleansing. This does not compare with Tibet where China has been moving Han settlers in Tibet to change the demographics.
RE:Kashmir vs Tibet
by Raghu K on Mar 24, 2008 08:50 AM Permalink
"If Pakistan became a Muslim country, shouldn't India have become a non-Muslim country?"
Are you saying that you should blindly copy what your neighbor does? Pakistan was propelled for 60 years with unjustified prejudice & hatred against India and now they are inches away from a total collapse. Are you saying India too should have followed a similar path?
RE:Kashmir vs Tibet
by Milind on Mar 24, 2008 09:34 AM Permalink
Raghu K,
Whether we like it or not, the basis of division of land was religion. That was the deal. We got a raw deal. Having said that, we should respect all muslims who are truely Indian, follow family planning, are willing to accept uniform civil code and do not celebrate when Pakistan defeat India in cricket.
Also, I fail to understand how India would have become chaotic if we were a non-muslim country ? There would be uniform civil code and no-minority appeasement. NDA and UPA would have to fight elections on true issues rather an Religion/Caste etc. Religious parties like BJP would not exist.
RE:Kashmir vs Tibet
by Raghu K on Jun 23, 2008 10:12 AM Permalink
I agree the basis of the partition was religion. But we DIDN'T get a raw deal. Looking at the way both the countries progressed after the partition, India is miles ahead of Pak.
And I never said India will become chaotic if we were a non-muslim country. The fact is we ARE a non-muslim country. As per Indian constitution we are a secular country where everyone has a right to practice the religion they like. If somebody is doing minority appeasement why can't the majority throw that party out in the next elections?
All I said was Pakistan took an approach based on India-hatred, and we shouldn't blindly copy that.
RE:Kashmir vs Tibet
by Arnav Singh on Mar 24, 2008 08:24 AM Permalink
Nice post Milind...hope guys/gals understand the core message of ur post. Kashmir n Tibet r same issues only for useless indian commies (who r paid chinese sgents in india) and people who know nothing about history of either land.
